Cyrille;
Very simple things like (algebraic) vectors, list of probabilities, etc. Of
course I can always make classes that contain just a vector and duplicate
every needed member functions and operators of float[], but that feels a bit
silly .
Wouldn't writing a Vector class, then creating a array of those come down to this?
Vector my-vectors[8];
Would do the trick, assuming you wrote the "Vector" class. That will get you everything that float[] has, I think, at least everything that "float[]" has that "float" lacks.
Moreover, unless there is some way of writing an implicit reference cast
operator from foo to float[] (again, excuse this possibly trivial question, I
am learning), I won't be able to use existing functions that take array
references as parameters directly on foo (I will have to pass the member
foo.content or trivially overload all of them).
We don't have operator overloading right now. At least you can't overload them yourself; of course the ChucK operator is quite overloaded. I'd still like to have overloading of the ChucK operator for classes we write ourselves (probably cast as well). Right now they can't be chucked to other objects to yield values or form connections, etc. This seems a bit unnatural to me; basically everything but the stuff we create can be chucked to things while -hopefully- the things we just created are very important to the domain we are reasoning about.
Yes I am lazy :)
A comendable property for a programmer, I hear :-).